AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The erstwhile directors of Aranya Consulting Private Limited have filed the present appeal under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013
seeking restoration of the name of the petitioner company which has been struck off by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana.
Facts in brief necessary for disposal of the controversy raised in the petition are that Aranya Consulting Private Limited bearing CIN NO.
U7200DL2011PTC214586 was incorporated on 22.02.2011 having its registered office, at 33-A, Rani Garden Ambedkar Park New Delhi Delhi
110031, within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The authorised share capital of the company was 200000. The issued, subscribed and paid-up capital of
the company was .Rs.1, 00,000/- divided into 100,000/- equity shares of Rs.10/- each.
It is the case of the petitioner that the name of the Appellant Company was struck off from the Registrar of Companies on 08.03.2019 by
publication of STK-7 because of the reason that e-form STK-2 was filed by the Applicant under section 248(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 with
relevant documents such as shareholder permission, statement of Account dated 27.01.2018 showing no assets & liabilities except share capital of
Rs.100000 on the liabilities side with equivalent amount of losses and indemnity Bonds duly notarised by all Directors.
The brief facts of the case are as:
i. On 26.04.2018 the applicant filed the application for revocation/ cancellation of Form STK 2 as Company decided to resume its business operation.
ii. On 09.05.2018 the applicant sent request via email to Respondent for revocation/ cancellation of form STK-2.
iii. On 09.08.2018 the appellant has again filed second application for revocation/ cancellation of Form .STK 2 as Company decided to resume its
business operation.
iv. On 28.08.2018 Company filed Form AOC 4 & MGT 7 w.r.t. Financial Year 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2019.
The ROC has filed its reply and has disclosed that e-form STK-2 was filed by the Applicant under section 248(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 with
relevant documents such as shareholder permission, statement of Account dated 27.01.2018 showing no assets & liabilities except share capital of
Rs.100000 on the liabilities side with equivalent amount of losses and indemnity Bonds duly notarised by all Directors which clearly states that
company does not have. assets & liabilities as on date and also not carrying business from last two years
The ROC in its report, further submitted that the e-form STK-2 was duly examined and sent for resubmissions on 28.03.2018 and 13.08.2018 for
general queries to the applicant however, no response received from the applicant and action for striking off was initiated on 12.09.2018. This action
was taken by the ROC on the basis of documents enclosed with STK-2 clearly shows that company has no assets & liabilities and not carrying
business and voluntarily submit application for striking off. Subsequently, in terms • of provision of section 248(4) of the Companies Act, name of
the company was struck off vide public notice STK-6 published on MCA's website, Newspaper a:s well as in the Official Gazette.
Heard the parties and perused the case records.
It is seen that e-form STK-2 was filed by the Applicant under section 248(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 with relevant documents such as
shareholder permission, statement of Account dated 27.01.2018 showing no assets & liabilities except share capital of Rs.1.00000 on the liabilities side
with equivalent amount of losses and indemnity Bonds duly notarised by all Directors. Later on, 26.04.2018 the applicant filed the application for
revocation/ cancellation of Form STK 2 as Company decided to resume its business operation.
It is clear that the company was never operative and had no business at the time of striking off its name as the revenue for operation is nil. Further
there is no Income Tax slip and detail of bank statement filed by the appellant to show that it was in operation at the-time of strike off.
While applying the facts of the present case, it is seen that the company was not in operation at the time of strike off.
Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
Let the copy of the order be served to the parties.